Koran Burner fired from his JOB (Violation of 1A?)

[CarmelHP]

Ah, now we come to the essential point of disagreement. I don't really want "my" government interacting with employees or customers based on anything other than mutually voluntary association. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

No, the opportunity for abuse is too great if the door is left open to pure at-will government employment for all employees. We've seen it. What you suggesting is that the government should choose winners and losers among religions or political parties and reward those who feel the same way accordingly. That is what is morally reprehensible about the position. The people making the choices of winners or losers aren't owners, stockholders, investors or have any interest in the enterprise. The abstraction known as "the people" own the enterprise. The same "the people" in whose name the Constitution was formed and who applied that Constitution to restrain government from making such choices. The Constitution is, or should be, the overarching "policy" or "manual" of government operation.

 

[Expat]

Being fired from your job, government or otherwise, does not make you a victim.

Not sure how you are defining victim but people that get fired are legally "victims" all the time.

You hit 55 and they fire you because of your age.

You are a 24 yo female. You boss tells you to put out or you are fired.

You are a black male, your new boss doesn't like black folks and fires you.

You are involved in an accident at work and turn in a work comp claim. Your employer doesn't like that and fires you because you turned in the claim.

Those are all instances where a fired person can be a victim, by law. You might disagree that they should be, but that really doesn't matter, does it?

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, you would like to work for someone who doesn't like black people, old people, and propositions women?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No, the opportunity for abuse is too great if the door is left open to pure at-will government employment for all employees. We've seen it. What you suggesting is that the government should choose winners and losers among religions or political parties and reward those who feel the same way accordingly. That is what is morally reprehensible about the position. The people making the choices of winners or losers aren't owners, stockholders, investors or have any interest in the enterprise. The abstraction known as "the people" own the enterprise. The same "the people" in whose name the Constitution was formed and who applied that Constitution to restrain government from making such choices. The Constitution is, or should be, the overarching "policy" or "manual" of government operation.

Except that the Constitution is a contract between the governed and the government. Not an employer and the employee union.

There is, and should be, not right to a government job. Even Cuba is backtracking on that position.

Employment laws were written to protect votes, not to protect employees from the biases and descriminations as you've stated. They were written to protect a government employee from losing their job for political reasons, either because a new administration decides their job is no longer necessary, the employee supported the guy that lost, or the employee failed to support the guy who won.

I say elections have consequences. How small would the Federal government be if when a new administration is voted into office and staffs each department with the people and levels the administration determins are necessary. The fact they can't is one of the causes of the big government syndrom we find ourselves in.

 

[CarmelHP]

So, you would like to work for someone who doesn't like black people, old people, and propositions women?

So, our tax dollars should be used to discriminate against black people, old people, and helping the pervert supervisor victimize women?

 

[Fletch]

No, the opportunity for abuse is too great if the door is left open to pure at-will government employment for all employees. We've seen it. What you suggesting is that the government should choose winners and losers among religions or political parties and reward those who feel the same way accordingly. That is what is morally reprehensible about the position. The people making the choices of winners or losers aren't owners, stockholders, investors or have any interest in the enterprise. The abstraction known as "the people" own the enterprise. The same "the people" in whose name the Constitution was formed and who applied that Constitution to restrain government from making such choices. The Constitution is, or should be, the overarching "policy" or "manual" of government operation.

"The People" own the enterprise in the same way the slaves own the plantation. Yeah, they provide everything that makes it run, but they really don't have any meaningful choices in the matter.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, our tax dollars should be used to discriminate against black people, old people, and helping the pervert supervisor victimize women?

Our tax dollars shouldn't be employing people to begin with.

The free market is an amazing thing. If a supervisor is really that bad, they'll have a hard time getting anyone to work under him/her. The work doesn't get done, the company loses money, now they have financial incentive to fire the bad supervisor and hire a good one.

 

[CarmelHP]

Our tax dollars shouldn't be employing people to begin with.

The free market is an amazing thing. If a supervisor is really that bad, they'll have a hard time getting anyone to work under him/her. The work doesn't get done, the company loses money, now they have financial incentive to fire the bad supervisor and hire a good one.

But in the real world tax dollars do employ people. Let us deal with the real world, instead of what we wish it to be.

 

[CarmelHP]

"The People" own the enterprise in the same way the slaves own the plantation. Yeah, they provide everything that makes it run, but they really don't have any meaningful choices in the matter.

So, their voice in the matter, the Constitution, you want that silenced as well, is that what you're saying?

 

[Fletch]

So, their voice in the matter, the Constitution, you want that silenced as well, is that what you're saying?

It is not.

 

[ATOMonkey]

But in the real world tax dollars do employ people. Let us deal with the real world, instead of what we wish it to be.

In the real world, the same free market principles still apply. Even for the government.

 

[Expat]

It doesn't look like anyone is going to post it, so here goes. A Supreme Court Justice has voiced his thoughts that while we all may be free to burn flags and Bibles, they will not allow the burning of the Koran. That will not be protected speech. Justice Breyer Suggests That Burning a Quran Could be Like Shouting 'Fire' in a Crowded Theatre--Thus Not Protected by 1st Amendment | CNSnews.com

 

[Phil502]

Alright ladies, let me give a crack at explaining this one.

This case does not touch on 1st Amendment rights. I personally believe 1A is the most important amendment and will stand up for it every time it applies. But it just doesn't in this case.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

Congress made no law. No one lost their right to speak. What has been made clear is that you do not have the right to a job. You do not have the right to be on the government payroll either. You are employed with the consent of your employer. Your actions can easily result in your boss letting you go. That does not mean that you lost the right to speak.


Does White House Communications Director Anita Dunn have the right to keep her job after giving a speech saying her favorite philosopher was Mao Zedong?

Does the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have the right to keep her job if she says assault weapons are, "Just too dangerous for Missouri families" ?

Does Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano have the right to keep her job if she produces a says NRA members are likely terrorist suspects?

Does the Science Czar John Holdren have the right to keep his job if he wrote a book called Ecoscience about eugenics and forced human sterilization?

Does the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have the right to keep his job after sounding like a blubbering idiot on TV all the time?

Does the President have the right to keep his job if he says "I did not have sex with that woman..." ?



If we had a real president, all these jagoffs would be fired immediately. And their rights would be perfectly intact. The president, the governor, the town council, the school superintendent.... all have the power to fire you, if they hired you, and you go to book burnings in your spare time and dance around in white hoods.

Remember those Health Care Bill protests we attended? If we lost our jobs over our presence there, would this be acceptable? If so then the government can in fact force you to keep quiet by pressuring larger employers by various means to keep people quiet. I'll bet no one working for NJ Transit is going to burn a Koran or show up at a protest for fear termination. So NJ Transit can follow you around the country now, the guy is in a different state, he did nothing illegal, he just did what they didn't like. There has to be a limit on getting fired for political protesting, I'll bet these jagoffs crossed it. Maybe our employers do not think posting on a gun site is okay, hey see you later then.

 

[Expat]

In the real world, the same free market principles still apply. Even for the government.

Really?
The government competes with private business in the free market? The rules apply the same? The first rule of the free market is inefficient businesses should die. The government agencies live with that maxim?

And yes I am aware that the government has prevented that from happening in the free market as well, with all the bail outs and TARP. But it still applies for most businesses.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Really?
The government competes with private business in the free market? The rules apply the same? The first rule of the free market is inefficient businesses should die. The government agencies live with that maxim?

And yes I am aware that the government has prevented that from happening in the free market as well, with all the bail outs and TARP. But it still applies for most businesses.

Not in product, the government competes with the private sector for labor.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

When did employment become a right? I'm against the government interfering in the employement relationship (even when it involves itself) almost regardless of the situation. If you don't want to work for the compensation and under the conditions provided, then don't. If the employer doesn't want you working for them for any reason, they should be able to fire you.

I don't like racists, sexists, or most other 'ists, whatever their ilk. Employers should have the ability to hire best fit empoyees. Should Hooters be forced to hire male waitresses? No, that's just nasty. 20+ years ago I worked for Mel Simon. All of the department heads and executives were Jewish. Did that offend me? No. I had no expectation it would be any other way. When I was ready to take the next step on the career ladder, I had a choice. Convert or find a new job. I chose the latter.

And that means if your behavior reflects poorly on your employer, or your employer's behavior reflects poorly on you, you should be able to terminate the employment relationship.

The bottom line is I could never work someplace where I was not a full partner in the employment relationship, and I needed some sort of surrogote, be it an agent, a union, or a government, to act on my behalf.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Remember those Health Care Bill protests we attended? If we lost our jobs over our presence there, would this be acceptable? If so then the government can in fact force you to keep quiet by pressuring larger employers by various means to keep people quiet. I'll bet no one working for NJ Transit is going to burn a Koran or show up at a protest for fear termination. So NJ Transit can follow you around the country now, the guy is in a different state, he did nothing illegal, he just did what they didn't like. There has to be a limit on getting fired for political protesting, I'll bet these jagoffs crossed it. Maybe our employers do not think posting on a gun site is okay, hey see you later then.

That's why having principles is a real *****.

 

[dross]

Ah, now we come to the essential point of disagreement. I don't really want "my" government interacting with employees or customers based on anything other than mutually voluntary association. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

I wish I had gotten to this thread earlier.

First, Fletch, you are 100% correct that morally a private employer with private money should be able to hire and fire whomever he likes for any or no reason whatsoever. I'm with you there.

Next, government employees. Distinctions - there are political employees and non-political employees. At one time, all civil positions were political appointees. This produced an unworkable system. The civil service was created to prevent the inefficiency and corruption that naturally comes from such a position.

I understand your principles, but this is one of those areas when I think your desire to stay perfectly pure, places you outside the realm of achievable reality.

If the positions are at the whim of the employer, that's the same as saying they are at the whim of the political boss at the top of that agency. Political organizations don't work the same as private organizations. Political capital runs the show, not the free market. If the process were totally politicized - which is the defacto result of at will employment for civil service workers - it would cause some negative consequences I don't think we want to live with. It's happened before, and it happens in some countries today.

Some of those consequences: First everyone would likely be fired and hired again based on every election. Second, corruption would be rampant, just as it is among political employees. Third, services to citizens could easily be rendered only to political supporters, and political opponents could be punished through denial of basic government services.

Personally, I'd like to see most government services contracted out to the private sector. As CarmelHP points out, however, we don't live in that world, we live in this one. And in this one, sometimes we must deal with the realities in a practical way rather than a purely principled way, simply to counteract the other violations of principle that already exist.

Otherwise we are creating worse abuses in practice.

 

[Expat]

I wish I had gotten to this thread earlier.

First, Fletch, you are 100% correct that morally a private employer with private money should be able to hire and fire whomever he likes for any or no reason whatsoever. I'm with you there.

Next, government employees. Distinctions - there are political employees and non-political employees. At one time, all civil positions were political appointees. This produced an unworkable system. The civil service was created to prevent the inefficiency and corruption that naturally comes from such a position.

I understand your principles, but this is one of those areas when I think your desire to stay perfectly pure, places you outside the realm of achievable reality.

If the positions are at the whim of the employer, that's the same as saying they are at the whim of the political boss at the top of that agency. Political organizations don't work the same as private organizations. Political capital runs the show, not the free market. If the process were totally politicized - which is the defacto result of at will employment for civil service workers - it would cause some negative consequences I don't think we want to live with. It's happened before, and it happens in some countries today.

Some of those consequences: First everyone would likely be fired and hired again based on every election. Second, corruption would be rampant, just as it is among political employees. Third, services to citizens could easily be rendered only to political supporters, and political opponents could be punished through denial of basic government services.

Personally, I'd like to see most government services contracted out to the private sector. As CarmelHP points out, however, we don't live in that world, we live in this one. And in this one, sometimes we must deal with the realities in a practical way rather than a purely principled way, simply to counteract the other violations of principle that already exist.

Otherwise we are creating worse abuses in practice.

You are being disturbingly pragmatic today....

 

[TopDog]

It doesn't look like anyone is going to post it, so here goes. A Supreme Court Justice has voiced his thoughts that while we all may be free to burn flags and Bibles, they will not allow the burning of the Koran. That will not be protected speech. Justice Breyer Suggests That Burning a Quran Could be Like Shouting 'Fire' in a Crowded Theatre--Thus Not Protected by 1st Amendment | CNSnews.com

Very scary article, thanks for posting it

In reference to burning a Quran at least the justice suggested (not a decision) it may or may not be protected under the First Amendment. He didn't say it was not.

But the justice goes on to compare it with shouting fire in a crowded theater, which is not protected under the 1st Amendment. So if I understand the justice's comparison burning a Quran can be like shouting fire in a theater because it could cause people in other countries to riot and kill. And that could stifle our 1st Amendment rights.

So the whole point is due to globalization we may have to stifle our 1st Amendment rights in this country so we don't upset people in other countries? The justice said this would be decided over time by cases that come up. I would hate to think that we could be bullied into losing our 1st Amendment rights.

From the article "On Tuesday morning, Breyer said any new interpretation of the First Amendment and the “crowded theater” benchmark will be decided over time through jurisprudence.

“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said."

Over time by cases, just like the case we are discussing now? This incident could have an impact on the 1st Amendment if it becomes a case in court. I hope it does go to court.